Top Photo:This is the normal version of the 2004-D Wisconsin quarter.Middle Photo:This is the so-called High Leaf.
It is actually die damage nonsensically "growing" from out of the circle
of cheese below and ending abruptly at the tip of a leaf from the corn.Lower Photo:This is the so-called "Low Leaf" that pierces right through a
normal leaf
in a most unnatural fashion and then arcs down into the wheel of cheese
below.

I've been following the posts on Rec.collecting.coins on the new 2004-D
Wisconsin die damage error or variety quarters (call them what you want, error
or variety makes little difference), and I agree with Tom DeLorey's earlier
comments 100% (his comments are copied at the end of this post). I received a
set a couple of days ago from Bill Fivaz for examination and they confirmed my
worst fears. The coins represent nothing but trivial die gouges (or possibly the
closely related die dent type of die damage).

They are prominent -- more so than average -- but they are NOT "extra
leaves" by any stretch of the imagination. They are die gouges (or again,
possibly die dents) with an estimated value of no more than $10 each by
standards usually attached to such items. This value assumes that coins would
have been promoted as what they are but as we can see they have not and as such
we have seen what is generally considered a relatively minor flaw promoted up to
being worth hundreds of dollars by using misleading nicknames.

With all due respect to the opinions of those who are convinced these are
intentional die varieties, as far as I'm concerned, the images provided by both
Coin World and later by J.T. Stanton, (to several specialists in an earlier
private thread), and a look at the actual coins, proves beyond any reasonable
doubt in my mind that these are not intentional die varieties but are instead
some sort of die damage such as die dents or gouges. I did not need to see the
coins to know this as the images referenced above were excellent but I decided
to wait until I saw the actual coins before commenting publicly.

First, it is my opinion that the States quarters program is one that must
move quickly and without much revision after a design is approved and a sculpt
made so that they can begin work on the next quarter. These designs are in use
today and gone (from the Mint's agenda) tomorrow.

There is little reason to tinker with designs to constantly improve their
character as might be the case on long-lived designs such as the Lincoln cent
obverse where improved designs can effect die life, aesthetic appeal, etc, for
decades. Once a sculpt is approved and an epoxy made from which a master is
created, there is very little likelihood for the Mint to tinker with the
designs. If you break a master you simply make another from the same epoxy as
the first. Breaking a master has to be fairly rare and breaking two in a row has
to be about as rare as hen's teeth. Still, a second or third master from an
epoxy should be the same as the first.

Further, a look at the so-called extra leaves shows that they fall short of
exhibiting characteristics of an intended design.

On the so-called "high leaf" we see that its base starts "sprouting" from a chunk of cheese! It is not connected to the ear of
corn at all until its apex ends abruptly at a leaf from the corn stalk (stalk
unseen below and behind the cheese). Folks, mold grows on cheese but not corn
leaves! Additionally good sculptors (or engravers) do no cause designs to end
abruptly like this. They encourage the overlapping of designs to create depth --
it is one the basics a good sculptor/engraver works into his/her designs
instinctively (or so I am told by those who have cut dies for me).

In this case, if that so-called extra leaf was intended, it would have
had its base start within the corn (not from a chunk of cheese) and it would
have tapered to a point that overlapped slightly over the larger leaf above or
ended earlier. It would not end abruptly and awkwardly at the leaf unless its
tip was bent over to the side (which would have also been an option available to
the engraver to give it a natural feel -- but we do not see that here either).

On the so-called low leaf what we see is a crescent shaped doubled curve with
its base starting within the central area of the lower corn which then skips the
high points of the larger leaf and reappears outside to continue its curve until
it ends at the cheese. Corn leaves do not grow right through the center of other
leaves (like an arrow shot through the leaf). If this was a deliberate design
the so-called extra leaf would have been coming out from under that main leaf or
would have been overlapping -- not created as a composite that shows it piercing
through in such an unnatural fashion.

Additionally, neither of the so-called extra leaves has any contoured
flatness or texture. The high variety is simply a tall narrow gouge while the
high variety is two narrow gouges (as if from a piece of jagged tooling) with
too quick of a taper. This one also shows an area of incuse field running
directly below the majority of the doubled area of the alleged doubled
leaf suggesting metal displacement due to damage to the die from impact after
the die was made.

We often see these types of depressions in the field around Mint marks from
the era of when they were punched into the individual dies prior to the 1990s
(which again, is metal displacement from impact). The fact is, the positions of
these so-called leaves are just too random and awkward to be deliberate design
modifications. They lack the contoured flatness and leafy texturing of the legitimate
leaves. Simply put, they don't look like they fit into the design because
they don't.

They are certainly not the way a U.S. Mint engraver would design a coin much
less even a second-rate engraver of silver rounds just start starting out.

To take a closer look, the reason the low leaf appears to be skipping the
high points is because it is a gouge or dent that did not sink far enough to
obliterate the original design. This is most damaging to the "deliberate
design" theory since we know how these effects occur and we know that
designers do not design coins that way. The effect tells us all we need to know.
Die gouges, scratches, etc., skipping over lower areas of the die (relief areas
of design on the coin) are a well-known diagnostic associated with die gouges,
etc.

To illustrate this point further, I pulled a silver round I had struck from a
damaged die a few weeks ago with a large die gouge running through the field and
over some letters. The die was damaged extensively with many scratches and a
scattering of gouges from being mishandled. It had been mistakenly thrown into a
bin of retired dies with closed out designs where it was allowed to bounce
around and be hit by the other dies which had unprotected faces (no die caps). I
sent it in anyway to be polished in an attempt to refresh it and had some sample
rounds struck..

On the 25 sample rounds I had struck from this die it could be seen that most
of the scratches and smaller gouges were removed but the largest gouge
remained.

As you can see, the gouge is large -- as large as those on the Wisconsin
quarters -- and it skips over the letters. As gouges (or dents) often go, it also has a
sort of leafy shape to it too!

As to these (Wisconsin quarters) showing deliberately placed gouges, (another
suggestion that has been advanced), it is my opinion that a gouge is a gouge is
a gouge (or a dent is a dent ...). How it got there matters little. Minor is
minor no matter how it is presented. Second, there is not a shred of evidence
that suggests they got there through some deliberate action. Die gouges (or
dents) are common on coins and like finding angels in the clouds, you will find
them where you want if you look long enough. Coincidental? Perhaps. But, in the
face of there being no proof they were intentionally placed there, I have to ask
-- so what?

I wonder? Are we now going to catalog every "conveniently" placed
gouge, die break or dent that comes along? If so, it is retroactive? At what
point (and who decides) which dents or gouges are major and which are minor? If
this is where we are heading, the Spadone book should become a best seller
overnight!

Or will we segregate the importance of gouges, dents and breaks by the era in
which a coin was made? I for one do not welcome a return to the days of
marketing minor flaws under fancy names that have nothing to do with what they
actually are -- especially when the fancy names mask a minor flaw and make it
sound far more important than it really is. These are minor flaws with catchy
nicknames -- and nothing more.

We have plenty of RPM, doubled dies, cuds, legitimate design modifications,
etc., still being discovered in quantities large enough to keep all the
attributers and collectors busy without bringing in the minor flaws don't we?

I'd suggest we do not open the floodgates to the abuses of the past but it
now looks like it is too late!

I want to make clear that I am under no illusion that these coins are most
probably here to stay. There are too many major players that have gotten behind
these coins that will continue to push them as something that they are not for a
long enough period to make them stick. It appears this is one of those rare
examples of a trivial error type being promoted into familiarity and acceptance
by the big promoters. Very few minor errors given fancy nicknames ever stick but
a few do catch on. In a nutshell, what I am against is the promotion of such
items under misleading nicknames. I wonder how well these coins would have sold
if they were labeled as what they are rather than with a nickname that suggests
they are much more?

You forgot the 1944-D half, where somebody accidentally polished the
designer's monogram off of the reverse die and then hand cut it back into the
die. THAT is a cool variety. These Wisconsin quarters are just, in my opinion,
random die damage that occurred near the corn by coincidence. Remember the
1890-CC Morgan with the die gouge at the tailfeathers? Somebody heavily promoted
it back in the late '60s and early '70s as the "TAILBAR VARIETY! EXTRA TAIL
FEATHER!" at big premiums. The last one I had in stock, I priced $10 over a
regular coin of the same grade, and it took about a month to sell.